首页> 外文期刊>BMC Nephrology >Comparison of double filtration plasmapheresis with immunoadsorption therapy in patients with anti-glomerular basement membrane nephritis
【24h】

Comparison of double filtration plasmapheresis with immunoadsorption therapy in patients with anti-glomerular basement membrane nephritis

机译:双滤膜对抗肾小球基底膜肾炎患者免疫吸附治疗的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) and (IA) are both used to clear antibody. However, the clinical efficacy and safety of DFPP in patients with anti-glomerular basement membrane (anti-GBM) disease are unclear. Methods The 28 enrolled patients diagnosed serologically and pathologically with anti-GBM disease from 2003 to 2013 included 16 treated with DFPP and 12 with IA, with all patients administered immunosuppressive agents. DFPP consisted of an EC50W filter for plasma separation and an EC20W filter for plasma fractionation. A double volume of plasma was processed, and each patient received a 30–40?g human albumin supplement during each session. IA consisted of 10?cycles per session, with 8–10 sessions performed daily or every other day and each session regenerating 30–60?L of plasma. Serum anti-GBM antibodies and IgG were measured, and urinary and blood tests were performed, before and after each procedure. Renal function and outcome were determined. Results The 28 patients consisted of 13 males and 15 females, of median age 44.5?years (range, 22.5–57 years). Six patients had pulmonary hemorrhage and 18 had serum creatinine concentrations >500 umol/L. The average serum creatinine concentration at early onset of disease was 525 umol/L while the peak concentration was 813 umol/L. All patients showed progressive increases in serum creatinine and required CRRT during the course of disease. Pathological examination showed an average 73.9% of crescents (range, 54.6–95.4%).The clinical and pathological features of the DPPP and IA groups were similar. Efficacy of clearing anti-GBM antibody was similar in the two groups (59.0 vs. 71.2%, P =?1.00), although fewer patients in the DFPP group experienced reduced IgG (62.7 vs. 83.5%, p =?0.002). One patient each had a pulmonary hemorrhage and a subcutaneous hemorrhage during treatment, but there were no other serious complications. At the end of follow-up, patient survival and renal survival were similar in the DFPP and IA groups. Conclusion DPPP plus immunosuppressive therapy efficiently and safely removed anti-GBM antibodies. The fewer plasma-associated side effects and reduced loss of IgG suggest that DFPP may be a better treatment choice for anti-GBM disease, especially in patients with insufficient plasma.
机译:背景技术双滤膜血浆(DFPP)和(IA)均用于透明抗体。然而,DFPP在抗肾小球基底膜(抗GBM)疾病患者中的临床疗效和安全性尚不清楚。方法从2003年至2013年从2003〜2013年患者患上血管学和病理学诊断的28例患者患有抗GBM疾病的患者,用IA和IA治疗,所有患者用IA治疗,所有患者患有免疫抑制剂。 DFPP由EC50W过滤器组成,用于等离子体分离和用于等离子体分级的EC20W滤波器。加工了双体积的血浆,每次会议期间,每位患者的患者都会收到30-40μl人白蛋白。 IA由10个?每次会议周期组成,每天或每隔一天进行8-10个会议,每次会议再生30-60?l等离子体。测量血清抗GBM抗体和IgG,在每种程序之前和之后进行尿和血液测试。确定肾功能和结果。结果28名患者包括13名男性和15名女性,中位数44.5岁?年(范围,22.5-57岁)。六名患者具有肺出血,18例具有血清肌酐浓度>500μm/升。疾病早期发病的平均血清肌酐浓度为525μm,峰值浓度为813μmol/升。所有患者在疾病过程中均显示血清肌酐和所需CRRT的逐渐增加。病理检查表现出平均新月的73.9%(范围,54.6-95.4%)。DPPP和IA组的临床和病理特征是相似的。在两组中清除抗GBM抗体的功效(59.0与71.2%,P =β1.00),尽管DFPP组中的患者减少了IgG(62.7与83.5%,P = 0.002)。一名患者在治疗期间每次患有肺动脉出血和皮下出血,但没有其他严重的并发症。在随访结束时,DFPP和IA组中患者存活率和肾脏存活率相似。结论DPPP加上免疫抑制治疗有效,安全地除去抗GBM抗体。血浆相关副作用和降低IgG的损失较少表明DFPP可能是抗GBM疾病的更好的治疗选择,尤其是血浆不足患者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号